UNION BANK OF INDIA vs CHIVUKULA VENKATA RAMANA

THE opposite parties in C.D. No. 1500/2000 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad are the appellants. THE complainants made certain deposits with Sikkim Bank Limited on various dates during 1998-99. THE said Sikkim Bank was amalgamated with the appellant''s Bank. THE total deposits exceeding Rs. 1 lakh are due to the complainants. However, the appellants paid only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh leaving a balance of Rs. 55,234/- . Hence, the complaint.

IN the written version filed by the complainants it is stated that under the scheme framed as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of INdia all the deposits of the complainants were merged and the total amount payable to the complainants was only Rs. 1 lakh which was already paid. Hence there is no deficiency in service. The District Forum on consideration of the material on record directed the appellants to calculate the amounts due by emerging the deposits showing the first complainant as the first depositor as one unit and the deposits showing the name of the second complainant as the first depositor as another unit and make payments as per the scheme. Hence the appeal.

The appellants contend that out of Savings Bank deposit payable at Rs. 1,77,816.67 ps. insured amount was only Rs. 1 lakh and, therefore, Rs. 1 lakh was paid. Both the complainants being pensioners made deposits jointly. They are treated as joint deposits. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that under Section 16 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 whenever an insured Bank under a scheme of compromise or arrangement amalgamated, the Corporation shall be liable to pay to every depositor in accordance with the provisions under Section 18, an amount equivalent to the difference between the amount so paid and the original amount or the specified amount whichever is less. Under Section 18 the depositors should be paid in the manner as may be specified by the Corporation showing separately deposits in respect of the each depositor and the amounts set off referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 16 and also the amounts paid credited or deemed to have been paid under the scheme. He draws our attention to Section 45(4) whereunder the Reserve Bank is empowered to frame a scheme for the re-construction of the Banking company or for the amalgamation of the said company with any other Banking institution.

WE have no quarrel for these submissions. But what is relevant for us to consider in this case is whether the deposits jointly made by the two retired employees who deposited their terminal benefits under joint deposits for convenience should be treated as one deposit though by impact while the source of the amounts deposited is different. Therefore, the District Forum in our view rightly directed to treat such of those deposits showing the first complainant as first depositor as one unit and all other deposits showing the second complainant as first depositor as another unit and make payments as per the scheme. This order in our view does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.